It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC architect claims towers were designed for controlled demolition

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
One of the architects who designed WTC2 said in an interview on February 21, 2007 with Mike Hagan at Radio Orbit that the two towers were designed for controlled demolition and were actually destroyed this way! He also said that Saudi Arabian engineers from the Bin Laden Construction Company, one of the biggest civil engineering companies in the world, were consulting with Emory Roth & Sons, the architectural company that employed him, at the time the towers were designed. The interview is at:

www.mikehagan.com...

Comments by a blogger on this interview at:

kentroversypapers.blogspot.com...

Most of the interview is about Paul Laffoley's work as a visionary artist and futurist. His remarks about his days working as an architect on the WTC project occur about 30-40 minutes into the interview. They are REVEALING.

I don't think this is disinformation because it would not be to the advantage of those who plotted 9/11 to get someone who worked on the South Tower to make public that the towers in the WTC were designed for controlled demolition! Rather lets the cat out of the bag, don't you think? That said, Laffoley seems rather naive if he believes that the attacks on the towers were carried out by Saudi Arabian terrorists who knew where to place explosives because his company shared this information with the Bin Laden Construction Company at the time when the towers were designed. However, the fact that he subscribes to the official view that Muslim terrorists were responsible for 9/11 adds credibility to his claim, for it indicates that he is not trying to contradict the official story but is merely adding to it his belief that terrorists also blew up the towers. He was NOT attempting to use the interview as a 'whistleblower' might who makes public facts proving that the official explanation of why the towers collapsed is wrong. What he revealed was said in throw-away remarks that had nothing to do with the theme of his interview. If he had an agenda of spreading disinformation, he would now be going around internet radio stations and telling everyone that the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition because he knows that they were designed to be brought down that way. He has not been doing this. His revelations came out in a few throw-away remarks about his early life as an architect that lasted only several minutes and which were made during a long interview that covered numerous topics about his current work as an artist. The suggestion that he was spreading disinformation is therefore highly implausible, if not ridiculous. He was not going about it in the right way if he was, and, anyway, the idea does not make sense. For these reasons, his revelations need to be taken seriously instead of being unthinkingly dismissed as disinformation.

Furthermore, as a futurist and creative, visionary artist, some of his ideas may seem speculative or even cranky to some people. However, to reject his claim that he helped design the towers for controlled demolition merely on the grounds that one cannot believe his philosophical ideas is, implausibly, to call him a liar when he has no motive for lying and to attack the messenger, not the message. Such cheap ad hominems merely betray the fact that the accuser cannot find rational reasons for finding fault with what he said. That, too, is therefore not a reasonable reaction to Laffoley's explosive claim.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Can you make some quotes directly from the interview? I tried listening to the first link you provided, but the first 5 minutes is just rambling from the radio host, I lost my intrest.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I have long thought that, when the CD theories became irresistable, the 'official' story would switch to, "actually, following the '93 bombing, we decided to rig the buildings in case another attempt was made".

In fact, not only did I expect this switch, when you think about it, such a rigging operation would have been an entirely pragmatic exercise in the wake of the '93 bombing.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
On my travels around the Wild Wild Web, I found this:

impactglassman.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   
What a great article - nice find.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   
No one's brought this up. But in new york when u blow up the twin towers, the highest building left is the EMPIRE state building. Empire hinting at NWO>



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
... the two towers were designed for controlled demolition...

... Saudi Arabian engineers from the Bin Laden Construction Company were consulting with Emory Roth & Sons ... at the time the towers were designed.


This part has been discussed before.

Get Smart! Epispde 52
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   


[edit on 22-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Well, with all the video evidence of what occurred, and with this kind of strong suggestion about these kinds of talks during the construction, I don't think I'm imagining hearing that they had rigged them in the event of a problem (e.g. they were severely damaged during a major storm and threatened to fall onto other buildings). The implication was they could demo them to prevent it.

No sources on that, but that is what I heard not long before/after 9/11 (not even sure if it was even part of a documentary on the Towers). I never put the two together at the time.

EDIT: Totally unrelated, but: here is another engine part: 911review.org...

I'm going to write an article on these incredibly similar aircraft parts. Resembles the pentagon engine, doesn't it???

Here is another interesting article: www.the7thfire.com...

I thought this was a nice photo of the WTC:



[edit on 22-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 22-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
On my travels around the Wild Wild Web, I found this:

impactglassman.blogspot.com...


Love it!




In fact, things really ARE known about “maximum force the lower structure can support.” For example, in the April 2, 1964 issue of Engineering News Record, we read about the “tremendous reserve strength” designed into the exterior columns of the WTC towers: “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.” 911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
In Nothing We Trust: I would love to see the source of that 66-73 interview... I posted something about lining the WTC with explosives at time of construction, see Chris Brown´s rant on the rebar:

A cold war technique was used at time of construction to prepare the towers for demolition



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
In Nothing We Trust: I would love to see the source of that 66-73 interview... I posted something about lining the WTC with explosives at time of construction


Listen for yourself.

This is the interview with WTC architect Paul Laffoley.

The interview starts about 30 min into the radio show. About 1/2 inch along the play line.

www.mikehagan.com...


[edit on 22-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
There seems to be alot of information that is coming out that points to these possibilities.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


So why are quoting some nonsense from 3 years ago ?

If there were anything to it besides some paranoid conspiracy rantings
would have heard more about it


Since 2007

Nada Zip Zero .......



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Whenever you design a building of that size,you must also provide a demolition spec sheet,have to figure how to remove it without damaging any other property



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
"Whenever you design a building of that size,you must also provide a demolition spec sheet,have to figure how to remove it without damaging any other property"

Ssssshhhhhhhh...don't tell anybody that. It will ruin their fantasy of oxygen starved fires from plastic, paper and pressed wood melting and/or compromising the integrity of massive steel beams which conduct, disperse and transfer heat.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
"So why are quoting some nonsense from 3 years ago? If there were anything to it besides some paranoid conspiracy rantings would have heard more about it"

I agree. Surely, in three years, the extremely trustworthy, reputable and unbiased mainstream media and Government would have picked up on this and exposed it.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This subject has come up before in this forum. I'm very sceptical of this story despite the fact that it would tend to bolster a main tenet of "trutherism", i.e., that the towers were brought down in controlled demolitions by means of explosive charges of some sort.

I've posted throughly on this in another thread whose title escapes me, but just to recap (citing no sources), at the time that the WTC was built, explosive demolition was still in it's infancy. No-one at the time, would have known how to plan the demolition of a building that size.

A very large building in New York was being taken down as the WTC was going up. (Apologies, the name of the building escapes me and I don't have time to look it up on ATS.) This building was taken down using the methods of that day, i.e., wrecking balls and cranes, piece by piece.

I don't believe it would be possible for information conveyed by an architect to anyone, at that time, to be of crucial importance in taking down the WTC by explosives. The knowledge simply wasn't around at that time.

Sure, he could tell you how to blow it to kingdom come, damaging everything for blocks around, but he could not tell anyone how to do a demolition like the one on 9/11, at that time, in the 70's.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Christ, now I've heard everything.

So, you're suggesting that the Sears Tower in Chicago is also rigged with explosives? You must be, because it's also a very tall building that'd be a bitch to bring down.

Dropping the WTC Towers only required the core matrix to be blown, and that was not difficult to put together in the weeks before the attacks. Simple magnetically attached C-4 blasting packs and thermate cutting charges at pre-determined points within the center core, placed by teams using the freight elevators during weekend engineering shifts (there were many of those during the summer of 2001), and all of these triggered with IED type RF receiving triggers, and the whole sequence programmed into a laptop with a transmitter in a building with line-of-sight proximity.

Simple Simple Simple

The hard part is over. We know how it happened. Now we just need the wet teams to go in and evaporate the perpetrators.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by NorEaster]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 



One of the architects who designed WTC2.....


I think I would check on this if I were you, I could find no record of this man being a register Architect before 1990. That would have made it pretty tough for him to have been a designer of the WTC in the 60's.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join